Malcolm Hutty: (08:22) @JZ, it wasn't meant as a debating point. On the contrary, this is how it will be used most of the time

Avri Doria: (08:22) i am comfortable with appropriate and further.

Malcolm Hutty: (08:23) +1 to Greg

Avri Doria: (08:23) i do not feel a need to create a traighjacket.

Greg Shatan: (08:24) Maybe for specific people...

Thomas Rickert: (08:24) fine with me, too

Malcolm Hutty: (08:25) I'm ok with those

Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:25) agree

Greg Shatan: (08:26) Any test that introduces a "necessity test" tends to create a straitjacket.

Greg Shatan: (08:26) Works for me.

Carlos Raul: (08:26) take note that English is my second language...

Avri Doria: (08:27) greg that is what i meant.

Malcolm Hutty: (08:28) I think it must have been somone else that pointed that out

Greg Shatan: (08:28) Avri, I was building on your statement, in agreement with it.

Avri Doria: (08:31) i did not accept that then and dont now.

Avri Doria: (08:31) that is why we have to be aware of the impact. of what we do.

Avri Doria: (08:32) this is a very simple statement.

Malcolm Hutty: (08:33) @Avri, if you've got a recognition of the principle of human rights included through "relevant principles of international law and international conventions", doesn't that suggest that as a consequence the question of how best to understand what that means to us in this context can be left to WS2? We're no longer establishing a principle - that is done - but implementing it

Avri Doria: (08:33) this is NOT all about Intellectual property. the whoel word does not revolve around IP

Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (08:33) +1 Greg!

Avri Doria: (08:34) we are all in favor of HR except ....

Becky Burr: (08:34) shall we move this to WS2?

Avri Doria: (08:35) the task is not large.

Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:35) the problem is that absent a balancing test between rights, we creat opportunities for IRP mischief when rights are in conflict. Can we build the impact assessment into the PDP?

David McAuley: (08:35) +1 @Becky, I think this is important and takes time and WS2 would be the better course

David McAuley: (08:35) +1 Thomas

Greg Shatan: (08:36) Stress tests, too....

Avri Doria: (08:36) the point is we do npot take them into account.

Edward Morris: (08:36) +1 Jonathan

Avri Doria: (08:36) the only reason it is a rush is becaue people kept pushing it off.

Avri Doria: (08:37) as i say i will need to file a mnority statement if it is isn't included. which is fine.

Avri Doria: (08:39) i do not accept.

David McAuley: (08:39) Becky, there is a group known as: CrossCommunity Working Party on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility toRespect Human Rights (CCWP HR)

Becky Burr: (08:40) thanks David

Avri Doria: (08:40) the HRPC is an excsue to push it off.

Avri Doria: (08:40) otherwise it would have been a HR CWG

David McAuley: (08:40) I defer to Avri on where the group fits in

Edward Morris: (08:41) @ Davis. Their remit is different than what we'd be looking at in an Accountability WS2 subgroup. Although there would be some overlap I'd suggest we should proceed with our own effort.

Avri Doria: (08:41) the commitement is to understandign the impactr.

David McAuley: (08:41) Thanks Ed - I am aware of the group only generally and acknowledge your point

Greg Shatan: (08:41) I would support creating a formal HR CWG. That's the right place to deal with this.

Amr Elsadr: (08:42) As far as I know the human rights group is still a Working Party (WP), which is an informal group. This may evolve into a more formal group at a later date. The existence of that group does not preclude this one addressing HRs .

Malcolm Hutty: (08:43) I think this language, especially when coupled with an extra description of our intent, will be sufficient to ensure a CCWG HR will be created

Malcolm Hutty: (08:46) A minority statement that said that would be inaccurate

Edward Morris: (08:46) I like Becky's earlier proposal to set up a group to look at this in WS2 with the ame committment given that group as other WS2 groups.

Avri Doria: (08:47) i do not think i am micharacterizing.

David McAuley: (08:47) +1 Edward

Avri Doria: (08:47) mischaraterizing.

Amr Elsadr: (08:47) @Ed: +1

Avri Doria: (08:48) Greg we see it very differently.

Greg Shatan: (08:48) It happens sometimes.

Amr Elsadr: (08:50) @Greg: Global public interest is included in the ICANN bylaws without the scrutiny to define it in the manner you suggest for HRs. :)

Greg Shatan: (08:52) As a public benefit corporation, ICANN is by definition operated in the public interest.

Becky Burr: (08:52) j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANNBoard determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. Unless ICANN determines that the advice addresses a matter that exceeds its Mission or violates its Bylaws, the The Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.

David McAuley: (08:53) pls mute lines

Greg Shatan: (08:57) Steve, you have lots of static on your line....

Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:58) ST 18 led to the change that only GAC Consensus advice triggeres the obligation to try to find a mutually acceptable solution

Malcolm Hutty: (09:00) @Greg, we're not saying we won't have that discussion, but that it's undesirable to hold up a Board decision based on a request that is impossible to fulfil

Becky Burr: (09:01) so, as an alternative, how about a direct statement to the effect that ICANN cannot accept GAC advice on matters outside its bylaws or in violation of its mission

Greg Shatan: (09:01) What is the consequence of "non-acceptance"?

Amr Elsadr: (09:01) I don't know if this is relevant, but the GNSO council has started a new practice where it addresses GAC commuiques as far as they impact work within the GNSO's remit. The idea is to inform the ICANN board with how these issues are being addressed within GNSO processes, to assist the board in how it reacts to GAC Advice.

Malcolm Hutty: (09:02) @Becky: yes, but language needs to be precise. It cannot accept GAC advice *to do something* outside its Mission or in violation

David McAuley: (09:02) the direct statement seems fine

Greg Shatan: (09:02) Sound of thinking.

Malcolm Hutty: (09:02) "on matters outside" isn't quite right. e.g. whether Amazon is a reservable word is a matter outside Mission, but decision as to whether to reserve it is within

Avri Doria: (09:05) exactly what langauge?

Finn petersen, GAC - DK: (09:05) Do we need this kind of language. I expect thatthe Board allways will take decision within the bylaws

Avri Doria: (09:06) i am not clear on what langauge

Malcolm Hutty: (09:06) @Finn, I think it is helpful to be explicit that Bylaws take first precedence

Malcolm Hutty: (09:13) ICANN shall have no power to act other than in accordance with, and [as reasonable appropriate] to [further] its Mission. This shall take precedence over any duty to defer to advice received from any advisory group

Greg Shatan: (09:14) should be reasonably not reasonable....

James Gannon: (09:14) I have to run to the PPSAI call sorry guys!

David McAuley: (09:14) none here

Malcolm Hutty: (09:14) @Greg: bits in [brackets] indicated text we had changed in this call, which i didn't have a note on